Sorry, I meant "extant". I don't know how that got buy Firefox's spellchecker.

When thousands of documents all agree, it doesn't matter which one you choose.

Yes, of the variant manuscripts we have, they typically agree in 99% of what they write. The big contention is over the remaining 1% that differs. People obsess over that 1% to the point that they're willing to throw the other 99% in the trash over it, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But I ask YET AGAIN, for the third of fourth time, what objective criteria you use to tell which version of that differing 1% is the correct one?

You wrote: Axe: You still don't get it. It is not the translations, but the source texts that are the problem.

Yes, I do get that, but you don't seem to be getting MY argument. How do YOU know WHICH of the extrant copies of the source texts is the more authentic? What OBJECTIVE criteria do you use to prefer one over the other?

The modern translation all derive from a single garbage bin.

Being in a garbage bin does not demonstrate quality. If I toss an old KJV into a dumpster does that diminish its authenticity? As I pointed out, ancient societies recycled documents as kindling, etc. but preserved ones they especially revered into garbage bins.

Axe: You still don't get it. It is not the translations, but the source texts that are the problem. The modern translation all derive from a single garbage bin. The KJV derives from thousands of individual source texts which show amazing agreement. Do yourself a favor and look up Dr. Walter Vieth's Battle of the Bibles on YouTube. You'll learn a lot.

You wrote: Axey: You are confused. It is the modern translations that apply the techniques of higher criticism to translations of the oldest extant texts.

Then please tell me what OBJECTIVE criteria one can use to say that the Textus Receptus is a more faithful copy of the originals than Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, if we don't know what the original exactly said? The only way to do so is to use some kind of textual criticism (short of a voice from the heavens levitating the book and saying "This is my beloved translation, in which I am well pleased".

Axey: You are confused. It is the modern translations that apply the techniques of higher criticism to translations of the oldest extant texts. (Note that there are NO original texts extant today.) The KJV was translated from Erasmus' Textus Receptus (16th century), and not from the garbage can Sinaticus and Latin Vulgate as were the modern translations.

A translation of garbage can be no better than original garbage - no matter the scholarship applied to it.

Jerry said, While I agree that one can find salvation in most any Bible version, I consider the KJV to be the most authentic - not because it is the best translation for modern times - but because it comes from the most authentic source, the Textus Receptus. This source is derived from thousands of ancient extant document fragments which are in amazing agreement.

Jerry, I understand what you are trying to say. But what research I have found is that the TR which Erasmus published (on which the KJV is based) does not contain much of the Byzantine source, which is the completely accurate version of the TR and still exists.

Your argument suggests that this text is the "most authentic", not "100% accurate". It is based on textual criticism, which does not give a yes-no answer, but a sliding scale of reasonability. It doesn't say "this text is authentic, that isn't", just "this text is seems more reliable than that".

Also, what makes the KJV superior to translations in other languages based on the same text?

Under Jewish tradition, scripture was so holy not even damaged or worn-out copies could be destroyed - they were receptacles in each synagogue (i.e. trash bins) solely for the disposition of such copies.

If a text is 95% accurate, its translation will be too (approximately).

While I agree that one can find salvation in most any Bible version, I consider the KJV to be the most authentic - not because it is the best translation for modern times - but because it comes from the most authentic source, the Textus Receptus. This source is derived from thousands of ancient extant document fragments which are in amazing agreement. Most all other Bible versions are derived from the Sinaticus (primarily) or the Vaticanus. These documents, while older complete versions, have been altered to remove text and demote the divinity of Christ. (The Sinaticus was literally found in the garbage.)

I never said that. I am fully willing to accept that monk copyists had the same accuracy as Jewish scribes - i.e. close to, but not equal to, 100%.

Now you are just picking nits. How do YOU KNOW that the translators of the KJV were using 100% accurate copies of the original?

I don't - it's the KJV-onlyists who think they do. I am arguing AGAINST them because we have no 100% accurate and authenticable source (i.e. how can we verify their accuracy, given the variant manuscripts?)

And monks do not have the same training as Jewish scribes? Believe me, this was their life's work, and they were assiduous in their copying.

"How do you KNOW that those manuscripts are 100% accurate copies of the originals, especially when there exist other copies that differ slightly?"

Now you are just picking nits. How do YOU KNOW that the translators of the KJV were using 100% accurate copies of the original? And how about the variations--where one Bible would sayhair, and another would say head covering?

Bolts from the sky didn't strike medieval monks dead if they made copying errors. Jewish scribes had extremly meticulous error checking protocols, and even THEIR manuscripts have slight differences.

How do you KNOW that those manuscripts are 100% accurate copies of the originals, especially when there exist other copies that differ slightly? The very fact that different versions exist means it is possible to make copies that are not 100% accurate. How can you possibly know that the ones in the Vatican archives are THE 100% accurate ones?

Something that is 99% accurate is not quite 100% accurate, is it?

Samuelbb7: Originals let you interpret yourself, rather than relying on a translator's bias.

True Strong Ax. Which is one of the reasons I like to use different literal translations. I don't need to spend years to study Greek or Hebrew. Which I can just read what groups of PHD's have translated for me.

Not exactly. All we have are imperfect copies. They are quite accurate, but not 100% accurate. The fact that there are multiple manuscripts that are not all identical testifies to this fact. One cannot look that these manuscripts and deduce with 100% accuracy exactly what the originals said, because where there's a difference, how can you tell which of two manuscripts reflects the original, if indeed, either of them does?

If you want a reliable consensus, this is indeed possible. If you want 100% perfection, however, you're out of luck, because nothing in this world is 100% perfect, not even bible manuscripts.

Some think they need to spend years studying Greek and Hebrew before they can understand Gods word in English, and doctrines suffer twisting and corrupting.Critics can't find a single legitimate mistake in the Bible, yet many seem to be focused on comparing them to "originals"It would be better if instead of spending time confusing people with third grade Greek that we teach the word of God in English.

Michael E. said, "My young friend, since you don't have originals you have not proven any errors in the KJV."

But we DO have the originals. We have them in Greek and Hebrew. (No, we do not have the physical original manuscripts, but before they crumbled to dust, or were burned, etc.) they were copied many times, by monks (such as myself) using papyrus, parchment, vellum, and paper, with ink and paint.

Those copies were just that, copies. It took longer that a Xerox machine, but the copy is just as accurate. From those copies, we have the originals, and we can go word by word through them, and find errors and "fudging" by the translators of the KJV.

By that very same reasoning, you cannot prove any errors in any other versions either.

we should be looking for the right Bible that is accurate and inerrant in history.

Without originals, how can you tell one version is "more" inerrant than another?

there is really only one historic text that is accurate and inerrant

What objective criteria do you use to determine WHICH one is THE correct one?

You have also still not answered why you think that an English version is superior to all others, even though for 3/4 of the age of the Church, it only had bibles of other languages. If those were all corrupt, how did a new incorrupt one suddenly appear?

Michael E. said, "My young friend, since you don't have originals you have not proven any errors in the KJV."

My ancient and venerable friend, That is not what I am trying to point out to you. The question is what proof, what verification that would be accepted in court as proper evidence, that the KJV was translated from a copy of the TR that was pure and had no flaws, no errors.

It is, after all, a translation of the TR into Tudor Diction English (finished some 416 years ago). I'm glad it is the Textus Receptus that was used. But it is also evident that at least some of the translation has been flawed by the world view of the translators.

//michael e, you have NOT explained why you believe that the KJV is "God's preserved word."//My young friend, since you don't have originals you have not proven any errors in the KJV. If God preserved his words throughout history and languages, then we should be looking for the right Bible that is accurate and inerrant in history. If he has not, then we can never be sure the Bible is true at all.By faith I believe God inspired the scripture according to 2 Tim 3:16, and perfectly preserved it to accomplish 2 Tim 3:17 in us that believe. Once you understand preservation, there is really only one historic text that is accurate and inerrantBTW You never answered, how do you rightly divide the word of truth?

The originals are lost, yes. However we have copies of the originals. These are imperfect, in that they may contain copyists' errors. On the other hand, translations are also copies of copies of translations of copies of copies, so they have BOTH copyists' errors, and translators' biases. At least with original language manuscripts, there are no translation errors.

Most importantly, it is an offense to God to continue in unbelief.

Yet so many people want to throw out non-KJV translations that are (say) 98% accurate, saying they are not God's word - allowing the 2% to be more important than the 98% good stuff. Who is the unbeliever here?

BACK FLIP???? No no no no I don't do that no more, I'm tired of falling down on the floor. No thank you please, it only makes me wheeze, and then it makes it hard to find the door. (Apologies to Ringo Starr)

//God's word is NOT lost in the original Greek and Hebrew texts//My young friend, if the originals can't be found they must be lost. Most importantly, it is an offense to God to continue in unbelief. It's not a matter of probability that Gods words are preserved. Neither a matter of mans capability. It is a matter of Gods responsibility. Rom 4:21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. Maybe God is more capable than you think

My young friend, here is another definition.Sackbut [N] [S](Chald. sabkha, Gr. sambuke), a Syrian stringed instrument resembling a harp ( Daniel 3:5 Daniel 3:7 Daniel 3:10 Daniel 3:15 ), not the more modern sackbut, which is a wind instrument. //But God NEVER promised that any translation would be without error//Do you actually believe God's word is lost?

Monk said//What??? You consult commentaries?// Monk pay attention, read before you write, I suggested that my young friend try another commentary to answer a question.Penance, 3 hail Marys and a back flip

I got this from everyone's favorite wiki. It seems to be an error going back to the Vulgate.

**There are various uses of sackbut-like words in the Bible, which has led to a faulty translation from the Latin bible that suggested the trombones date back as far as 600 BC, but there is no evidence of slides at this time**

If words are in the KJV but not in other versions, how do you know that they ought to be there, rather than being incorrect words that were correctly removed? Do you also believe that the Apocrpyha, that were in the original KJV, were incorrectly removed?

Man thinks he can improve what God penned in the King James.

God inspired the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. King James hired imperfect human translators to create his Authorized Version. There are several revisions of the KJV. Which one of those many do you think God wrote, and which ones do you think are corrupt?

Shira said, " Michael, God is perfect. His Word is perfect. God has never made a mistake and He never will. I am a KJV person and the reason is men keep changing what the King James says. So many words, verses left out of new corrupt versus. Man thinks he can improve what God penned in the King James...."

You must be joking! God did not write the KJV. He did not pick up a pen and put ink to paper. If you think He did, you are deluded!

The Scriptures were written by men, under Divine Inspiration, millennia ago. God did not ever put pen to paper. So back off of the rhetoric, take a deep breath, and try to say what you really want to say. If you put it in plain English, there shouldn't be a problem.

Michael, God is perfect. His Word is perfect. God has never made a mistake and He never will. I am a KJV person and the reason is men keep changing what the King James says. So many words, verses left out of new corrupt versus. Man thinks he can improve what God penned in the King James. The new versions Are nothing excep Satan invading and trying to take the deity away from Christ. It doesn't matter who agrees or who don't, I have went thru this with a fine tooth comb. It is trendy to carry a new version but if I were you, I would throw it in the trash where it belongs.

//You don't think that means the KJV, do you?// Of course My young friend, where else would it be, since you don't have the "Originals" It's the KJV. You don't think God's word is lost do you?//WITH the Apocrypha, btw.//Doesn't surprise me.When are you going to prove the KJV is inaccurate?

// Being a music major, I knew what a sackbut was//My young friend check a few more commentaries. //As I said the last time you asked this, it's the Greek and Hebrew.//Maybe the translators were not Hebrew and Greek scholars.//Please show me FROM THE BIBLE where God promised to preserve the KJV from error.//It says his Word would be preserved forever You don't think his word was lost do you?//WHICH recension?//1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized VersionWhich one do you use?

I've only known of a few that exclusively use the KJV and adhere to it as the only bible to use.

I don't worry about such things, believing the Lord is able to make truth known as He wills. I am thankful for those who have encouraged me to use the KJV in addition to other versions and it has become a preference.

He never said that. What he did do is show that the assumption that "The KJV is inerrant" is false, because this is one (of several) counterexamples.

That is no proof that it is the KJV. Scripture has been around for 16 centuries before the KJV was put together, and the KJV has only been around for 4. The New Testament has existed in other languages and other translations than the KJV for 3/4 of its existence. What makes the KJV so special?

No one has ever proven the KJV is not God's word.

Nobody has ever proven that the National Enquirer isn't God's word either. Is that reason to blindly trust it?

My young friend, you just happened to be thumbing through the Bible and found the word sackbut and wondered what it meant? And someone said it wasn't a stringed instrument?

God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7, Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, what is it? All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Strange the new versions don't compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they line up against the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26. No one has ever proven the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.

//You have YET to explain why it's necessarily in the KJV//One of the best explanations is so many try (and fail)to prove it wrong//there ARE places where the KJV translators fudged their work//So my young friend since you seem to be able to find errors, I believe it is up to you to prove it.

My young friendThere is no good reason to doubt God could preserve his inspired words perfectly and without error. It's not a hard conclusion to make that if God inspired words for the salvation of humanity that he would preserve them.Sadly, many find it hard to believe every word in the Bible. Some argue to prove the impossibility of Gods preservation mistakes and errors. Even though I dont see the need for argument according to Romans 3:3-4, the errors simply dont exist.By the way shouldnt we be teaching belief in God and his words and not doubt? What good is it to stand in doubt of the Bible you study when the very words of eternal life and peace with God are only beneficial if they are first believed?

Rob said, "The...Lords supper, communion...Lords table appear in Pauls epistle not in the Messiahs ministry to Israel.Paul says the bread is not the physical body of Jesus, it is the church, the boC. (1 Cor 10:16-17)"

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

What part of IS IT NOT do you not understand?

As far as us being part of the Body of Christ, I can receive that, for I partake of His Body and Blood every time I go attend Divine Liturgy.

Rob said, "The phrases Lords supper, communion, and Lords table appear in Pauls epistle not in the Messiahs ministry to Israel."

What about in Matt 26:26-27, and the parallel phrases in the other synoptic Gospels? What about John 6:34-58? These verses are directly from Jesus mouth. THAT is what Paul is talking about, not words that Protestants use because they dislike the term "Eucharist"

You wrote: So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

Ever since Babel, there has not been "one true language". It is pure anglo-centric egotism to believe that the sole uncorrupted version of God's word just happens to be an English-speaking version, and not in some other language.

You don't think God is incapable of preserving His Word do you?

Many people refuse to consider the possibility that the essence of God's word is kept, imperfectly but mostly intact, in many versions in many different languages. Nothing in this world is 100% black and white. Why should human translations of God's world be any different?

monk said //if the KJV is the "true" Bible, why do you not follow the clear Word of God contained in it? For in the KJV it is written: (Matt 26:26-28 KJV)//The phrases Lords supper, communion, and Lords table appear in Pauls epistle not in the Messiahs ministry to Israel.Paul says the bread is not the physical body of Jesus, it is the church, the boC. (1 Cor 10:16-17) Paul says, the cup is not the blood of Jesus shed in shame for Israel, but the blood that bought the salvation and forgiveness for all men not under any covenants (Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 12:13).The doctrine of communion was given first to Paul in order to teach the church about its common free gift of salvation together in Christ. Rightly divide monk

Michael E. said, "Anytime I see what some call an "error"....I NEVER try to correct the Book that God has honored for so long. I'm not that stupid."

But, my ancient and venerable friend, if the KJV is the "true" Bible, why do you not follow the clear Word of God contained in it? For in the KJV it is written: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt 26:26-28 KJV)

//The REAL Bible is the Hebrew and Greek text. There is no "real English Bible." My young friend, it amazes me that you think God is incapable of preserving and translating his word. //Why should the KJV be the exception? It was not exactly greeted with applause and kisses when it first appeared. In fact, radical Puritans called it the Devil's Bible and burned it in the streets.//Christ himself was called a devil and not accepted by the masses.

My young friend,There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church,(body of Christ) consisting of true believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?You don't think God is incapable of preserving His Word do you?Since you know it isn't the KJV, you must know where it is, please share.

Michael E. said, "My young friend, you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today? Anytime I see what some call an "error". I assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it..."

Michael, what are you judging as the "real" Bible? The JW's have a Bible that rejects the Trinity in favor of three different aspects of the same Person. There are many other "Bibles" that have been written to support or deny some theological point or another.

//there ARE places where the KJV translators fudged their work//My young friend, you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today? Anytime I see what some call an "error". I assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I trust God. I NEVER try to correct the Book that God has honored for so long. I'm not that stupid

michaele, there ARE places where the KJV translators fudged their work, either for good reason (such as listing commonly known Tudor instruments in Daniel 3), or not so good reason (as rendering KECHARITOMENOI as "highly favored in Luke 1, where everywhere else the root CHARIS is translated "grace").

It's a shame many teach there are mistakes in the KJB.Some try to convince the church there are better renderings easier to understand. As a result saints waste time studying Greek and Hebrew instead of understanding Gods word in English.Critics can't find a legitimate mistake in the KJB yet many seem focused on creating them by peppering scripture with better renderings.It would be better instead of spending time confusing people with third grade Greek that we teach them the word of God in English!There are no mistakes in the Bible. .

Those who state that the KJV is the only one we should use are wrong i.m.o. I find it extremely helpful to have many versions and, when appropriate, I check out a text in several of them. This usually gives me more clarity when I am slightly confused or when I wish to explain a scripture to someone who is not a regular bible reader and would be helped by these comparisons.

As I do not understand the original languages in which the bible was written I do the best I can do by comparing the English versions that I DO have.